jsport said:
Kadija_Man said:
Arjen said:
In a Galaxy a long, long distance away from reality...
your reality of 1999 would have fields of dead American soldiers in any future war, so thankfully your not the Head of any RDT&E or requirements process.
As I am not an American, I doubt I will ever be in charge of the US Army. If, however, I was, I would not be proposing that the US Army waste squillions of tax payers dollars on weapon systems that do not work and do not have reason for existing. I would instead that the US Army be equipped with weapon systems that do work and do have a reason for being produced.
You, on the otherhand? Well, we have seen what you are proposing. A return to an ancient MBT project that failed because it was a hot-potch of ideas which were never able to be made to work properly.
You have failed to address the disorientation of the driver, in his separate "turret" which was found to occur.
You have failed to address the problems of the location of the vehicle commander in a lower position than the driver, with inadequate vision all round.
You have failed to address the problems of the gun/missile launcher combination and the knocking out of alignment of the missile sights each time the conventional round was fired.
You have failed to address how your "improved-MBT-70" was to be powered. There is no room in the front of the hull for a "forward propulsor" - what ever that would be. Essentially you are suggesting a new vehicle.
You have failed to address where your "scouts" would be seated in the hull, what vision they would have out of the hull and what weapons would they have and use.
The MBT-70 and the XM803 are dead and gone. Both project was abandoned because it could not be worked - on the basic of cost and equipment. Until you have something other than a 50 year old hull and turret shape which have been surpassed in MBT design by better shapes and armour, you are wasting our time.
A new MBT would resemble an M1 or a Leopard II, rather than an MBT-70 or an XM803. It would feature well sloped, Chobham or depleted Uranium armour and active armour arrays, offering all round defence against ATGWs and gun rounds. It would not have extra space for "scouts". To do so would require increased armoured volume and that would require more armour. More armour would require a more powerful engine and gear box. All that adds more space and that requires more armour again.
Waving a magic wand does not work in the real world.
